Also gonna throw in planned obsolescence ITT. why is it that a '90 240 'vo wagon can easily run 1,000,000 miles with do it yourself at home maintenence, but the newest flashiest benz won't last 100,000 miles without critical transmission problems? Yet they claim they have "lifetime tranny fluid" that needs to be changed despite their claims. jewish menace.

>its da joos but yeah, I'm convinced the oil lobby pressures research so we don't get good batteries and thus electric cars keep sucking

Blow it out of your ass.

>>9934 Which "more energy-efficient systems" are you referring to, OP?

Reminder that if we even had half of one hundredth, of one hundredth of the current natural resources that we have of petrol, diesel, coal and natural gas we'd still be in no danger of running out for the next 15,000 years at rates slightly higher than today's. The only Jewish thing about fossil fuels is how much we're paying for them.

>>9952 >screencap of a chan post with only one reply and no cited sources k >inb4 "I have no source because DA JOOS control the media"

Modern engines are pretty fuel efficient to be honest. People don't like them because they're not exuberant apart in their power to consumption ratio but they're pretty damn good. I mean Ford extracts 120 HP out of a 3 cylinder, 1 liter petrol engine. That's pretty damn efficient.

>>9961 I hear that and I agree. But it's still just polishing turds. We've made turds extremely shiny with lots of bells and whistles but they are still just turds. I'm no engineer but I know for certain the kikes are keeping us down. Something at the fundamental level of how we harness the energy from fuel needs to change. Also, if you take the time to read up on some conspiracies, there are tons of documented cases of engineers dabling in the alternative energy field who "shot themselves 12 times in the back of the head then hanged themselves".

>>10007 cont: And I'm not at all advocating electric shit like tesla or some other pozzd liberal garbage. Electric cars are literally a century old - there is NOTHING impressive or new that tesla has brought to the table. No my aryan brothers, I'm not talking about electricity. I'm talking about something else. Something we can't see…but it is there….

>>9959 You need cited sources for simple math now? The math is fine. You can work it out yourself, if you'd like. Convert 1 cubic mile to cubic meters to work out how many liters, then compare that to gallons. The amount of oil we use in a year is pretty spot-on, too. Estimates I found say we use between 90-95 million barrels per day, which is 34,670,000,000 barrels/year on the high end. What percentage of the earth is fossil fuels, I cannot say. Presumably substantially less than 0.1%, but this whole thing was a thought experiment. There's still a shitload of oil so we've got a fair bit of time to sort shit out.

>Century behind in engineering >Things science and engineering is magic Boi, the engine engineering is a compromise, yes you can use an electric car everyday and it willd doin' good, but common, you think the jews who dominate the petroleum will think too much about buy all the lithium reserves? Or all the patents? Common, the problem of the batteries, is they have not the same energy per kilograms as the fossil fuel, and it will not have.

>>9961 >I mean Ford extracts 120 HP out of a 3 cylinder Don't confuse Specific power with efficiency, they are two different things, to calculate efficiency you need to know the specific fuel consumption, which it must be measured in g/kwh or something similar MAN from a inmense two stroke marine diesel with no more than 4,5hp per litre gets an efficiency of around 60%, the specific consumption is 135 g/kwh, and there's a reason for that You use the turbocharger to recovery energy wasted from the exhaust, and send a bit of that energy to the intake manifold via compressing air, but if you have a turbo too big and a very small engine, the air compresses more and heats more per KW, and the biggest complain of internal combustion engines is the heat energy losses. To create power you need basically air, and to generate for example 200 horsepower, you need lets, for example 1 kg of air, and 300 grams of fuel, doesn't care if the engine is a 1 liter, or an 8 litre. And power is a mesurement of Torque x RPM, and that's when engineering, becomes engineering The ideal, is an big engine with a very high compression ratio, a two-stage turbocharger, or that sort of thing, and a "not-so-high" power output.

Ethanol could be the fuel of the future if it was pushed. Renewable=cheap and no-one, not even the hipster fucks in their Prius' actually give a fuck about the environment, they just don't want to pay for fuel. But it will never get pushed because oil is a massive money maker and if Joe gets fucked well who cares.

>>10834 Emmm No, just no.. let me explain this, both alcohols, ethanol and methanol have efficiencies of around 20-25 mj/kg the problem is that normal gasoline is around 47 mj/kg, the best fossil fuel to burn is the Methane, buthane and propane with 55 mj/kg, meaning your car need around 20l/100km instead of 10l/100km Also, to made a kg of alcohol, you need a big amount of water, a lot of time of the sun, and a lot of fuel used to plant, seed, fumigate, and harvest, and those machine with the 2800+bar diesel injectors will use the awful plant oil? i doubt.Plus… how many KG of plants you do need to produce 1 kg of methanol or ethanol? and the energy necessary to process it. The problem of all biofuels, is that you need to cut food supply to power cars, and that honestly isn't a good idea, a calculation show, that if you wan't to produce enough fuel for the US oil demand you would have to plant ONLY FOR FUEL more territory than the US actually have, plus the most part of US corn fields are in practically the same hands as the oil giants. The only reason why oil can't be cheaper, is because they would get less money. Algae fuel? Procesated trought a power plant condenser? maybe could work, but again, algae just produces the same thing as oil, crude oil, but from algae, and just oil is the most versatile fuel.you can get plastic, medicaments, fuel, chemical, coal, ashpal, everything. Also if you want a really really good fuel, you should try toluene, which haves an octane rating of 121, the 80's 1500 hp f1, 1.5 litre turbo engines used it. It haves the same energy density as gasoline. BioFuels where a bad idea a century ago, and today is still a very bad idea.

>>10836 Ethanol is usualy made using waste from pretty much any plant, not the parts anyone would eat anyway. Ethanol is pretty easy to produce out of this waste and it has a decent octane rating of over 106. Due to the high octane rating you could run a higher compression and/or boost wich increases the themodynamic efficiency and power of the engine. The only bad thing about ethanol may be the a bit lower energy per kg of about 30 MJ/kg compared to 42 MJ/kg of gas, wich is pretty much nullifyed from the higher compression ratio and/or boost. By the way ethanol burns way cleaner than gas so a munfacturer could stretch the oil change intervalls by a decent margin.

>>10837 You can't made from any wate of plant, to made ethanol you have to synthesize from another place, which have number atoms, but in different ways. Most part of ethanol in big ammounts is produced by hidratation of ethile, which is maded by the petrochemical industry. "Bio"Ethanol is just like the drinks alcohol, and it have's to be maded from saccharose, basically sugar, starch, or cellulose, "not from any plant" And there's another problem, you need a lot of energy to process Sugar, or Cellulose into ethanol, without saying you have to combine with benzere (or how the germans call it, gasoline), so much is considerable as around 70% more energy to made it than you get from burning it. And taking in mind our engines have a round efficiency of ass much 50% that 70% it becomes 140% And just isn't efficient using an 1000 hp engine running during 1 hour to produce fuel to made a 300 hp engine running 1 hour. The octane rating is another world for combustion temperature, of autoignition point, the octane is for not let the mixture autoignite, it does not have much to doing with the combustion efficiency, except you can run an engines at higher temperatures, bigger compression ratios and get as much energy from the combustion as possible, the problem of very compressed engines is that they also have a higher heat rate per kW. But if you have an old 60's N/A muscle car , you going to loose power because the engine can't burn all of the fuel. And as i said before you wan't a good fuel? toluene is the best thing.

>>10842 1.Every plant on earth contains cellulose. 2. Battery powered vehicles are much more efficient, but it might be usefull in serial hybrids for long distances. 3.You don't have to add other hydrocarbons, you could simply use 100% ethanol. 4. Old cars with extremely low compression rates aren't that cmmon, also new cars need higher octane pretty much every year.

look at this fucking retard hydrogen electric is the only viable alternative btw lithium rare as fuvk

>>10846 1-I not only if the plant have's cellulose, is how much of the plant is actually cellulose, it cost much, much less process 1 ton of sugar cane to extract cellulose, (and sugar) than from any other plant, and still yet, the energy used to process the cane to get cellulose, and then to process cellulose to get ethanol, is more than the total energy in the ethanol.Isn't magic, is engineering, and i know this, because i talked from this with an engineer in a sugar cane process plant, where they made, paper and alcohol. take in mind this, you need 1.4kG of oil, or coal, to made 1Kg of ethanol, that's is the end. 2-Yes, electric motors are more efficient, but, and the batteries too, but still isn't that close, the Lithium air battery, haves an energy density of 6.48mJ/kg, but gasoline still got 46.4 mj/kg, lets say 20mj/kg taking in mind engine efficiency at today's standars. 3-Yes, but if you wan't really high compression fuel, the best is toluene, end of the story.

>>10847 Sorry m8, but you need more electricity to extract energy from the water than you get it from burning or passing it trough catalitic fuell cell.

>>10848 1. You use waste as source and ferment it, not much energy is needed to do so, the only ernergy consuming process is the destilation after that You won't need anywhere near 1.4kg of oil to produce one kg of ethanol. 2. Thats why I said serial hybrids which are elctric cars with a small generator for long distances. And ~200km electric range. Also comparing the energy density alone doesn't make any sense, since a ICE car only useses upt to 20% of the energy, while a electric one uses ~95% of it. 3. Toluene is produced even less efficient than ethanol.

>>10850 >since a ICE car only uses up to 20% of the energy Incorrect, they use up to 60% with just a 10.1:1 compression ratio. L2Thermodynamics.

>>10850 1-Yes, fermentation convert cellulose, and suggar into ethanol, but the problem isn't only is how much tons of dead plants really you need to produce 1 ton of ethanol, plus the transport 2-I taken at least he 1.4 kg of oil due to the energy losses of the normal 4 stroke engines, and a report actually prooves by energy imput and output that you need 40-70% more energy to process ethanol than the energy inside it. >Also comparing the energy density alone doesn't make any sense, since a ICE car only useses upt to 20% of the energy, while a electric one uses ~95% of it. 40% would be a better number for today's standars, and what? still there's much more energy than the one that's in the batteries 3-Toluene is maded just exactly as gasoline,and with gasoline, the toluene is basically a byproduct in the production of gasoline 4-Dead plants allways have less cellulose due to the descomposition into carbon. 5- I just wouldn't use ethanol ,because simply isn't as efficient per Kg as naphtas and and it would increase fuel prices.

>>10834 Ethanol production is only profitable in areas where there is an abundance of feedstock and even with gen 2 plants such locations are scarce and the process rather inefficient. Ethanol is wonderful as a fuel from a national security perspective since it offers a domestic source of energy production but it's not the replacement for gasoline many wish it is.

>>10853 The most efficient ICEs ever build like methan gas turbines or twostroke-diesels as used in ships and powerplants may have a that high efficiency at their best operating point. A normal car engine running out of its sweetspot most of the time won't even get near to 60%, its peak may be 40% at best, but these engines usualy wont run in their sweetspot most of the time.

>>10856 >modern engines have a efficiency of 40% Some engines have a peak efficiency of 210g/kwh wich is about 35-40%, but this is only the peak efficiency. In this area they already produce about 60-70% of their maximum power, since you don´t drive like 100mph+ you can´t run them in that area most of the time. You only need about 15-20hp to sustain 60mph. pic is a diagramm of a 1.5L 3 cylinder diesel desinged to be as efficient as possible

>>10861 Turbine engines have similar "compression ratio" to piston engines, you can swap them pretty much. let me give you an example, 10:1 CR can be changed to pressure ratio by making it CR^k with k being the specific heat capacity ratio of air. which you can say is between 1.35 to 1.41 depending on where you are, I'll just use 1.4 which gives you a pressure ratio of 25.12. to get it's thermal efficiency you'll use a complicated ass formula 1- (1/CR^(k-1)) which with the numbers I gave you with a 10:1 engine is around 60%. with higher compression ratios and well, turbocharging, you'll get even an even higher efficiency. if you account for mechanical drag between parts and put it around 85% (which is where the majority of regular cars are) you'll get 51% for just a 10:1 ratio. So yea, ICE are more efficient than muh electric fags tell you.

We must engineer an IC engine that runs off of the ashes of the chosen. The holocaust never happened but it WILL.

>>11874 Modern GuD powerplants get more than 50% efficiency, so do marine diesels. Diesel engines in cars get up to 40% peak efficiency, BUT they only get it at medium rpm and high load as shown in >>11131 . To get there you would need to use a verry low powered engine and even then you would only get a good efficiency driving a constant speed on the highway. Electric cars get a good efficiency at any speed.

>>12122 How do you know all this technical shit. What kind of fucking geek are you?

>>12124 Engineering student @ RWTH